- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:16:51 +0000
- To: Michael Sintek <sintek@dfki.uni-kl.de>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Michael Sintek wrote: > > Dave Reynolds wrote: >> We can use OWL to model what we say will be true of a rule, e.g. that it >> should have at least 1 consequent. >> >> It's true that if one then applied a generic OWL inference engine to it >> one would infer the presence of a missing consequent rather than detect >> an omission. However, it is perfectly possible to also take the same >> modelling but apply closed world checking to instance data (we have >> tools that do this) and so achieve the desired schema-like behaviour. > > IMHO, using OWL for modeling but interpreting it in a schema-like > way is not allowed -- this would mean we completely ignore the > official semantics. So if we send our RIF OWL ontology to other people > who use the official semantics, they will understand it in a > different way, and then we cannot use it as an interchange > language any more. I don't think it ignores the semantics at all, the semantics in terms of legal models is still the same. It is just that ontology consistency checking is not the same as closed-world instance validation - for the latter you have to make additional assumptions. Some instance models which are consistent with the ontology are not schema-valid, but all schema-valid models are consistent. This may be a discussion to take off line, if it needs to continue at all. Cheers, Dave
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:17:34 UTC